Is Rachel Reeves serious?

Wouldn't that potentially mean that someone might end up being not represented by a barrister at all, GSM? If every one turned them down?

If your client insists that they are innocent but you don’t believe they are, you either refuse to continue to act or you tread a very precarious line in order not to mislead the court. The cab rank rule only applies to accepting the case in the first place.

Dinahmo

Maizie I think that RR has to talk as though govt spending is similar to managing a household because so many believe that it is, regardless of how often you, me and others explain that it isn't.

The Tories are gearing up with the dirty tricks. Apparently they have a team investigating all the cases that Starmer dealt with when he was D of PP. Don't ask for a link - my DH told me about this before Christmas and he can't remember where he read it.

People are still referring to the financial situation when Brown lost the election. They still believe that there was no money because of the note left behind for the new Tory Chancellor. Some of them are really silly if they believe that. How do they think we were the 6th? richest country in the world if there was no money?

I think it's good to keep telling people that a government isn't in the slightest bit like a household. I think that people should know that there is more than one way to run an economy, and the rationale behind disposing of the 'household' myth. (However annoying some folks think I am for constantly banging on about it )

The tories are trying to smear Starmer by bringing up unpopular criminal cases for which he was the defence barrister. They are depending on people not knowing about the 'cab rank' rule. Barristers aren't free to pick and choose the criminal cases given to their chambers.

Besides which, they don't defend their clients because they believe they are innocent, they defend them to ensure that the law has been correctly applied and because, under British law, everyone is innocent until they are proved guilty and are entitled to be defended by a barrister.

It's a shame that 'popular opinion' has such a very shaky grasp of how the law works...

Oreo

Just more defensive and partisan statements Doodledog
I don’t care what she earns either but as shadow Chancellor I expect her to be well paid, and am guessing her husband is well paid too.In other words she can manage financially.
She will very shortly be living in Downing St!
Your excuses for her silly statement are an insult to those, including me, who really do run a household on the tightest budget imaginable.

How does what RR earns insult you? I just don't understand. And nor do I know whether she 'can manage financially' - how could I without knowing her income and outgoings, which I have no desire or right to do.

What does the fact that if Labour win the GE she will be living in Downing Street have to do with anything? She isn't living there now, and it is now on which the figures are based, not what might happen in a year or so.

I am not making excuses either - I am explaining why I don't think her income matters, and why I think the idea that she has an income of £385k is wildly inaccurate. Not only are you telling people what they can afford, you are telling me my motives, and getting them spectacularly wrong.

You didn't clarify what 'can afford' or 'manage financially' means, incidentally. I'm not nit-picking, but I do think it's important to clarify whether those who make such pronouncements about other people's circumstances mean just surviving or living as they (the pronouncers) do, or quite what it means. How much do you think a politician should live on, and what would you have them do with family money, or savings they accrued before taking power? Would you impose the same constraints on the rest of us, so that nobody has more than they 'need'?

Of course it is, difference being that this person doesn't pretend that he can't live within this budget. R R does, and if true, instead of moaning , should make a few economies like we all do under similar circumstances.

Maizie I think that RR has to talk as though govt spending is similar to managing a household because so many believe that it is, regardless of how often you, me and others explain that it isn't.

The Tories are gearing up with the dirty tricks. Apparently they have a team investigating all the cases that Starmer dealt with when he was D of PP. Don't ask for a link - my DH told me about this before Christmas and he can't remember where he read it.

People are still referring to the financial situation when Brown lost the election. They still believe that there was no money because of the note left behind for the new Tory Chancellor. Some of them are really silly if they believe that. How do they think we were the 6th? richest country in the world if there was no money?

I decided to check ona Tory MP. Lee Anderson was hte first name tat I recognised so here's his list of interests.

£100k per annum from GB News for 8 hours per week as a presenter

£53k for helping with his local campaigning

1 hospitality ticket for England vs the All Blacks £1950.

Is the above acceptable?

I can remember being a f/t teacher and my husband earned a decent salary and having no money at the end of the month, no I wasn't frittering it away on booze and fags, I was paying for 4 kids at different life stages - music lessons, sports, clothes, uni costs, yes I had a mortgage, a cleaner and ran a car- shock horror so I wasn't down on my uppers, but these helped me run my life at that time. RR will have more expenses than I had - what Im guessing she meant was that the money doesn't stretch as far as it did even a couple of years ago with the huge rises in energy costs, mortgages, travel, food etc .

ronib

Maizie D completely agree.

It's nice to agree from time to time, ronib 😂

Quote didn’t appear so 13.38 comment refers.

Maizie D completely agree.

Germanshepherdsmum

I thought you would say that! Perhaps you should give some lessons to RR.

There are plenty of well qualified economists who could do that, even more orthodox ones.

For example:

mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2024/

ronib

GSM the tax burden is already unsustainable? I am beginning to worry for young families.

The tax burden for some, allied to inflation, is unsustainable. For others it's easily sustainable. In fact, some could be subject to more taxation without it materially affecting their way of life.

I thought you would say that! Perhaps you should give some lessons to RR.

ronib

The full interview is on YouTube. RR has committed to spending only the amount received in tax receipts. Money coming in must equal money going out. How do we feel about that?

The UK is not a household. The State issues our money, either directly by state spending into the economy or by quantitative easing, whereby the Bank of England created the money to buy up bonds with the objective of releasing more money into the economy.

The state does not have to 'earn' money before it can spend it, it can put its 'created' money into the economy, where it will circulate and drive economic activity. Taxation drains excess money from the economy. Without taxation there would be too much money around, which would cause inflation, even hyperinflation in some circumstances.

There will always be less money 'coming in' than there is money going out because people tend to save spare money if they don't need or want to spend it all. 'Balancing the books' in accountancy terms just means accounting for all the money flowing in and out. It shows if there is a surplus or a deficit. Deficits matter to everybody except a state, because no-one except the state can create money, if they did it would be called counterfeiting and would be illegal. But states have to create money because if they didn't there wouldn't be enough money in circulation to accommodate a growing population.

There is far more money in circulation now than there was 50 years ago; if there wasn't everyone would have a smaller and smaller share of the finite amount of money available. Just imagine if only the money available for the post war UK population of 45 million had to be 'shared' among out current population of 66+ million. The extra money needed has been mainly put into the economy by the state.

The only way a state can run a surplus without impoverishing its population would be for it to take in more money from foreign trade than it pays out in state spending. As this is far from the case for most countries the state has to run a deficit because of the fact that people save, spend money on imports or just on foreign holidays... Running a deficit is not bad unless it leads to excessive inflation ( a modest rate of inflation isn't harmful, as we know from years of inflation in low single figures).

This a basic, simplistic explanation of a very complex topic.

The real issue is how money is distributed within the population; in our current economic situation money tends to flow upwards, hugely enriching certain parts of the population and impoverishing others. If one thinks that that is not a bad thing, fair enough, but if one believes that distribution should be more equable, that there shouldn't be large numbers of people living in poverty in a supposedly 'wealthy' country it is a situation to be deplored...

It is for many. Starmer has said, I believe, that he won’t be looking to raise taxes or introduce a wealth tax so if what RR says is correct, that can only mean little spending, which won’t go down well in some areas. It doesn’t sound as though she and Starmer are singing from the same hymn sheet.

GSM the tax burden is already unsustainable? I am beginning to worry for young families.

That sounds like a hint that tax hikes will be deemed necessary Ronib.

Perhaps this lady could consider down sizing if things are as tight financially as she said, or another means of 'drawing horns in'? There are plenty! I speak from experience so could offer tips!!

The full interview is on YouTube. RR has committed to spending only the amount received in tax receipts. Money coming in must equal money going out. How do we feel about that?

Just more defensive and partisan statements Doodledog
I don’t care what she earns either but as shadow Chancellor I expect her to be well paid, and am guessing her husband is well paid too.In other words she can manage financially.
She will very shortly be living in Downing St!
Your excuses for her silly statement are an insult to those, including me, who really do run a household on the tightest budget imaginable.

In many ways I often thought RR would have been a good leader of the Labour Party having listened to some of her speeches, I find her more impressive than Keir Starmer, but that's just a personal opinion, maybe laced with the fact that it's about time Labour had a woman at the helm.

Nevertheless, I thought she showed an amazing lack of judgement when she jumped to the defence of Alison Rose, with something along these lines of "misogyny and bullying removed her from her position at Coutts" Really! she broke a cardinal rule in discussing a client's private affairs. I personally care not one iota that the client in question was populist and reviled personality, Nigel Farage, it's all about the breaching of confidentiality and boy did she, Alison Rose pick the wrong person there to have a indiscreet snigger about. There it was again that complete lack of foresight not to mention integrity. Farage nailed her and rightly so imo. So maybe Dame Alison's a mate of Rachel's who knows but citing the fact that she, Alison Rose, was removed as CEO because she's a woman, diminished Rachel Reeves a little in my eyes.

Following on from the appalling PO debacle I get sick of this lauded elite and the way they sometimes know about wrong doings, but leave it under the radar or blatantly lie. Politicians should always be there to represent the people not overpaid and often useless public figures.

Maizie D The clip is available to see online - Guido Fawkes. I believe full interview with Christopher Hope will be also online. I have only just seen the DM article which is very uninspiring. You can check for yourself as to accuracy.
My husband thinks the interview was doctored but I don’t think so!

Yes to Doodledog 👍🏻

Good post at 10.59 Doodledog